Split entries by development status
Should we perhaps consider sectioning off some of these by development status? Many of these links have either dead links, haven't been developed in many years, or are just plain dead.
I respect that some of these considerations are stable and still used, but many are very, very dead and used by an extreme minority.
- How would you section off the dead from the very dead? As you said, dead does not necessarily mean unusable, so you would need to find some objective metric.
- Note that dead links should be marked with Template:Dead link.
- -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another thing to consider is that dead projects can come back to life. I think Window Maker development stalled for about 7 years or so before restarting again. That said, if something is no longer in the AUR then I think it's fair to remove the listing from this page - we had one such cleanup in December 2015  -- Chazza (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In the Spanish article i3 appears as a DYNAMIC wm.
Should it be classified as a dynamic one in the English article? IMO it is